‘The Times They Are A Changing’ – Whether NCAA Likes it or Not

When news broke Tuesday of the NCAA’s change in the meal policy for student athletes it hardly registered a blip on the sports media radar screen as a big deal. The governing body’s Legislative Council approved a change that will now allow unlimited meals and snacks to all Division I student-athletes, including walk-ons. That’s big news – not for the immediate impact of the change but as a precursor for things to come.

On the surface, you would think that the NCAA’s action is a no brainer. Most people probably didn’t even realize that student athletes (all of whom are involved in heavy physical training) were limited to three meals a day with no snacks in between. However, the NCAA if anything is never out in front of a problem. They only react to situations. Such is the m.o. of a bureaucracy.

Shabiz is not the first athlete to complain of not having enough to eat. But make no mistake, this action is of much larger significance than more food for student athletes. This is the NCAA trying to close the barn door after the horse has already escaped. I’m afraid concessions like this may be too little too late.

The NCAA is attempting to say, ‘see there is no need for a union rep because we are responsive to the needs of our student athletes.’ Don’t get me wrong, I fully support providing athletes with all their nutritional needs and other expenses. What I don’t support is the unionization of college athletes.

Like Nero, the NCAA has been fiddling, while a firestorm of discontent has been growing larger around them. It would be easy to point the finger at Mark Emmert and since this has occurred on his watch, he certainly bears some culpability. However, it is far greater problem than one man. Again, it is due to the slow mechanization of a bureaucracy as well as resistance to change.

The larger question here, is what will become of college football as these issues are played out in the courts? I will go on record here and say this is one man that thinks the unionization of scholarship athletes is a bad, bad idea. I know there is an insane amount of money in Division I college football and the ‘full cost’ of the athletes has not been covered. I get that. But college players are either scholarship athletes or they are employees – they can’t be both.

As scholarship athletes they are currently receiving a free college education worth anywhere from $20,000 to $70,000 a year depending on the college. In reality, colleges spend more on athletes when you add in their meals, their free weight training, conditioning, nutritional help, books, free medical, and academic tutoring.

On the other hand as an employee, the athletes would share in the profits, be able to sell their likeness and autographs, and have the right (as in the NFL) to player representation as well as collective bargaining. Anyone ready for the loss of a football season because of a labor dispute between management and players?

Also as an employee the employer would have the right of dismissal. In the business world when an employee is not pleasing their employer they are subject to being fired. Imagine coach ‘A’ doesn’t think that player ‘B’ is working out. He/she has an attitude or maybe seems to be injury prone. As an employer, Coach ‘A’ just fires them. How does that help the student get an education?

Because the NCAA has not responded appropriately or in a timely manner to student athlete needs and concerns, we are now faced with this quagmire of an uncertain future. The NCAA’s free food rule change is only a band aid to a much larger issue and a harbinger of bigger changes ahead. To quote that great American musician and song writer, Bob Dylan :

“The wheel’s still in spin, and There’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’ For the winner now will be later to lose For the times they are a-changin” …

P W Elder is a Civil War buff, upland bird hunter, and Auburn blogger. He loves tailgating with his family and friends, following all things Auburn, and spending time with his wife in the Loveliest Village on the Plains. View Profile →

3 Comments

See so many problems with a union.
First if unions are formed and college sports are recognized as business with players as employees, I think there will be alota guys that won’t be able to play. Also will it just be the sports that are making a profit that are unionized? If so, how fair will that be to the non represented athletes?
Second, the minor sports may go under since they don’t generate enough capital to stay in business. That could mean the closing down of women’s sports. But wait – what about title 9 which says schools have to provide opportunities for women? … You said it right ATM, present mess is a quagmire.

There’s something else about the unions….the students will not unionizing against the NCAA; they will be unionizing against individual Universities. Therefore if the goal of being able to form these unions is to have a larger collective voice with the NCAA, unionizing will not accomplish that.

And, yes, I realize that it was just a week or so ago that I was arguing for the student-athletes….but in the context of what they are after and what they are arguing in court for, we should all be champions of, just perhaps, not a champion of the way that they are going about it. I can’t blame them. The NCAA has long ignored this problem and now, here we are. Mark Emmert needs to resign. Burn down the NCAA (figuratively!!) and rebuild. That would be a good start to fixing this mess.

[…] separating from the rest of Division I schools. We wrote in this space a few weeks ago that the times are changing in college athletics. Jay Coulter’s Tuesday article about the possible removal of conference […]

Welcome To Track 'Em Tigers

Serving the Auburn Community since 2005. If you haven't already done so, create an account and join in the conversation.